Date of Decision: December 1, 2020
Service Center: Texas Service Center
Form Type: Form I-140
Case Type: EB-1C (Multinational Managers or Executives)
Field of Expertise: General Management
Beneficiary Information
Profession: General Manager
Field: General Management
Nationality: Venezuela
Summary of Decision
Initial Decision: Denied
Appeal Outcome: Denied
Case Overview
The petitioner, a company seeking to employ the beneficiary as a general manager in the United States, filed an EB-1C petition for a multinational manager or executive. The beneficiary had previously worked for the petitioner’s parent company in Venezuela. The immigration benefit sought was to classify the beneficiary under the EB-1C category, which is designed for multinational managers and executives. However, the petition faced scrutiny regarding the specifics of the managerial duties that the beneficiary would perform in the United States.
Key Issues
The primary issues in this case revolved around the petitioner’s failure to establish that the beneficiary would be employed in a managerial capacity within the United States. The job duties described by the petitioner were found to be vague, generic, and lacking in detail. Additionally, the organizational structure presented by the petitioner was insufficient to support the beneficiary’s role as a personnel manager, particularly given the small size of the team and the questionable full-time employment status of operational-level employees.
USCIS Findings
USCIS and the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) found that the petitioner’s descriptions of the beneficiary’s proposed duties were not sufficiently specific to demonstrate that the position met the requirements for a managerial role. The descriptions lacked examples of actual managerial tasks and failed to clearly define the oversight and control the beneficiary would have over other employees. Furthermore, the organizational chart provided did not support the claim that the beneficiary would manage a sufficient number of professional or managerial employees, raising doubts about the credibility of the petitioner’s claims.
Supporting Evidence
The petitioner’s supporting evidence included job descriptions, organizational charts, and payroll documentation. However, these documents did not resolve the inconsistencies noted in the initial review. The job descriptions were too vague to establish the managerial nature of the beneficiary’s duties, and the organizational chart indicated a structure that was insufficiently staffed to support the beneficiary’s role as a personnel manager.
Additional Notes
The AAO also noted that while the petitioner argued that the beneficiary would manage essential functions within the company, the evidence provided did not adequately describe these functions or establish their critical importance to the organization. As a result, the petitioner’s claim that the beneficiary was a function manager was not considered.
Conclusion
Final Determination: The appeal was denied, affirming the initial decision that the petitioner did not establish the beneficiary’s proposed employment in the United States in the claimed managerial capacity.
